110
LENIN COLLECTION.

—the editors are in such a position.
This is absolutely necessary to correct.

To paragraph 4. The commission concludes that the development of technique, among other things, places small producers in a more or less complete dependence on capital. But the point is that besides more or less *complete* dependence there exists also more or less *obvious* (respectively—*hidden*) dependence. The "critics" à la Bernstein overlook this: where dependence is hidden, they do not recognize its existence at all. Knowing this, in my draft I said: more or less complete, more or less obvious, *more or less burdensome*. These last words seemed to me necessary in view of the disputes I had to conduct in Brussels³) with some Belgian "critics," which would take too long to elaborate on here. The commission *improved* my draft. Whether for the better, I do not know...

To paragraph 7.

The commission failed to notice that here it tacitly acknowledged the correctness of my formulation: commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production. *Mieux vaut tard que jamais*⁴)! But what a ponderous, almost Lomonosov-like style it has here!

Paragraph 9. Its beginning is *illisible*⁵). At the end there is a correct thought: *certain, not entirely proletarian, strata are going over to the side of the proletariat, insofar as they become conscious of the hopelessness of their position*—expressed in a desperately poor manner. Would it not be better to say: to the proletariat and other strata of the toiling and exploited masses, insofar as these strata become conscious of the hopelessness of their present position and adopt the point of view of the proletariat?

§ 12. The organization of the proletariat into a separate political party, *struggling against all bourgeois parties* and—this is expressed neither precisely nor elegantly: struggle against *all* bourgeois parties is not obligatory at *every* given moment. *Example*: the Belgian socialist proletariat now marches *together with one part of the bourgeoisie against another part*. It is sufficient to say: *into an independent political party of the working class*.

PLEKHANOV.—REMARKS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM OF THE COMMISSION.

§ 14. *Of the old order, based on the enserfment of the toiling masses to landowners and the state*. Besides peasants enserfed to the landowner and the state, there were also peasants enserfed to the head of state: In my draft this was stated. The commission *improved* my draft in this place. Whether for the better, I do not know...

Moreover, since the old order is a thing of the past, one should say: *which was based*, not *based*.

§ 15. I have nothing against it. Only the style has become loose, as in the preceding paragraph. But about that later.

*Thus*, I agree with the draft, *even in the event that you do not take into consideration a single one of my remarks*. But I *very much ask you* to take them into consideration, *especially what was said under 3* [in point 3].

Regarding your move to London I can only regret it. But it is true that here one cannot ensure complete freedom of action for those who will work on the *Iskra*. However, I propose to you to transfer the publication of the *Zarya* to Geneva and entrust it directly to myself and Pavel [Axelrod]. Thus we shall have a division of labor: we—the *Zarya*, you—the *Iskra*. I very much ask you to discuss my proposal. The *positive side* of publishing the *Zarya* in Stuttgart consists only in an increase of expenses by about 40 percent, and in a multiplication of the number of misprints. The *negative side* lies in the remoteness of the place of publication from the place of editing. It seems to me that the positive outweighs the negative.

Your move to London will make my participation in the *Iskra* even more difficult. And meanwhile events in *Russia* are becoming increasingly serious, and I am itching to do publicistic work. It sometimes occurs to me: might the "League"⁶) (that is, properly speaking, you) permit me to publish in Geneva a special newspaper of the sort of Dostoevsky's "*Diary of a Writer*." I could not compete with the *Iskra*; on the contrary, it would have in it a true ally. And the expenses of publication would be covered by the sale of my diary. I ask you to think this over and answer me in your next letter⁷).

I am sending V. D. [Zasulich's] article herewith. At the end of it there is criticism of the Orthodox writers who contributed to legal journals⁸).

I *decisively protest* against this criticism in the name of Beltov and Kirsanov⁹). If you do not find it possible to strike out this criticism, then I ask you to give me the opportunity to print a reply to it in the same issue of the *Zarya*. With two or three quotations from Beltov and from Kirsanov I shall show the lack of foundation for the aforementioned criticism.

My article on the crisis *cannot serve as an internal review*. It will be a survey of the situation in all countries affected by the crisis, that is, in almost the entire world. Clearly, an internal review should be written separately.

The latest issue of the *Iskra*¹⁰) in almost every dispatch says: the manifestation was organized on the initiative of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Why give publicity to the Socialist-Revolutionaries? Such phrases should be struck out.

Moreover, the *Iskra* *with unperturbable seriousness*¹¹) publishes a dispatch from Poltava in which it speaks of cries: "Long live Count L. Tolstoy, champion of freedom!" The editorial board should have explained to readers that this count is not struggling for any freedom whatsoever. The fact that his name is becoming a banner is a sad sign of the political backwardness of Russian society. We must struggle against this backwardness.

If Frey [Lenin] has finished his work on the *Agrarfrage*¹²), would he not send me my books on this subject? They might be useful to me here, and in the London British Museum there are books enough of all kinds.

Well then, I shake your hand firmly. Your G. P.

V. D.'s [Zasulich's] address is written too illegibly; I could not read it.

1) Consciously.
2) Karl Marx's *Capital*.
3) In Brussels G. V. Plekhanov was at a session of the International Socialist Bureau on December 30, 1901. (See his report in No. 15 of the *Iskra*, Collected Works, vol. XIII, p. 192.)
Since the data cited above give grounds to assume that the first discussion of the draft program of G. V. Plekhanov took place